Synchronized classes have no public members
Marco Leise via Digitalmars-d
digitalmars-d at puremagic.com
Tue Oct 13 11:28:23 PDT 2015
Am Tue, 13 Oct 2015 12:52:55 +0000
schrieb Dicebot <public at dicebot.lv>:
> On Tuesday, 13 October 2015 at 12:51:14 UTC, Benjamin Thaut wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 13 October 2015 at 12:20:17 UTC, Minas Mina wrote:
> >>
> >> I agree that synchronized classes / functions that not that
> >> useful.
> >>
> >> But synchronized statements, to me, make the intention of
> >> locking explicit.
> >
> > Synchronized statements are fine and serve a good purpose, no
> > need to delete them in my opinion.
> >
> >>
> >> Maybe the internal monitor could be removed (with synchronized
> >> classes / functions as well), and allow synchronized() {} to
> >> be called on Lock objects, that essentially locks them at the
> >> beginning and unlocks them at the end.
> >
> > Yes, I would love that.
>
> Isn't dedicated language feature a bit too much for a glorified
> mutex scope guard?
Guys, sorry to break into your wishful thinking, but
synchronized(mutex) {}
already works as you want it to since as long as I can think.
Yes, it takes a parameter, yes it calls lock/unlock on the
mutex. :)
--
Marco
More information about the Digitalmars-d
mailing list